Emails revealed this evening by Fox News agree with many of Denise Simon’s statements and contention that the Obama regime’s explanation of an anti-Islamic video as the reason for violence in Benghazi on September 11, 2012 was a “cover-up” from the beginning. The group Ansar Al Sharia had taken responsibility early on for the attack, which killed four Americans.

(Oct. 24, 2012) — On October 20, 2012, The Post & Email published the first part of an interview with Denise Simon, a Senior Research Analyst on Domestic and Foreign Policy for Maj. Gen. Paul E. Vallely (Ret.), a well-known Middle East military and Middle East analyst and commentator.

Ms. Simon had written a two-part article on her observations regarding the events of September 11, 2012 which killed Amb. Christopher Stevens and four specialists working for the State Department in tracking Libyan weapons released after the fall of Muommar Gaddafi. Simon contends that “Egypt was a massive protest on 9-11-2012; this was a militia attack of Benghazi operators” on the U.S. consulate.

In part 1 of our interview, Simon stated that Libya has fallen “into the hands of the jihadists” and that Iran could be influencing Libya. Iran has been named by the United States as “the most active state sponsor of terrorism.” Simon has also linked the violence in Libya to the civil war in Syria and found that Syria is now in possession of missiles. She stated in part 1 that it was likely that thousands of weapons hoarded by Gaddafi had found their way to Syria by way of militant groups throughout Libya. It is estimated that 30,000 people have been killed or are missing as a result of the upheaval there.

Prior to the attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi on September 11, 2012, rising violence and attempts to attack the compound had not been reported in the U.S. press.

A recent New York Times article claims that the Obama regime has been negotiating with Iran in “secret exchanges” since Obama took office, but in last night’s final presidential debate, when asked by the moderator if the story were accurate, Obama responded that it was “not true.”

The second half of our interview follows.

THE POST & EMAIL: Obama involved the U.S. in Libya without congressional approval. Why do you think he wanted Gaddafi removed?

MS. SIMON: There’s a lot of speculation, and I can’t tell you for sure, except that Gaddafi was stirring the pot when it came to currency manipulation and oil. He was selling his oil; obviously he had a lot of oil. He didn’t want currency; he didn’t want Euros; he didn’t want the U.S. dollar; he wanted gold. People need the oil. So we needed to assume control of his oil revenues and exports so we could keep the value of the gold in check. The gold is worth $800 today; people are buying oil for the sake of gold, and tomorrow that gold is now worth $1,500. So that added to Gaddafi’s wealth.

That looks like the single-plan speculation on why we wanted him removed, but I also have a deep sense that one of the other bigger reasons to have him removed was to allow the movement of The Muslim Brotherhood into Libya. Gaddafi had kept them at bay, as Mubarak had tried to do. We cannot dismiss that we effectively got Hosni Mubarak out of there as well.

THE POST & EMAIL: Mubarak had been a U.S. ally, kept terrorism under control and tolerated Israel, had he not?

MS. SIMON: He was far beyond tolerant. He was a true protector in a lot of cases of Israel, which had to worry less about Mubarak than Ahmadinejad or any of the mullahs.

THE POST & EMAIL: Do you think that the U.S. had a part in the Arab Spring, and if so, what role do you think this country played in it?

MS. SIMON: By ignoring all the threats and the regime changes and not intervening in that regard and supporting a regime change in Libya and Egypt is our hand in the Arab Spring: to hand it over to The Muslim Brotherhood, and to a large extent, to Iran. Iran is running completely unchecked now in Iraq. So the poor decisions or lack of a decision on what was going on when it all started in Tunisia and ended up in Tahrir Square is a failure of the United States and the United Nations. We just found out within the last two weeks that Syria, and this includes the Assad opposition forces have come into a large ownership of missiles. If we had addressed Syria early on, as in last year, we could have saved that country, but now, we can’t do it. Now it is completely infiltrated, and the rebels in Syria are angry at the United States because we did nothing to help them. They wanted, and in some cases still do, to be a true friend of the U.S. and the Western world; they don’t want radical Islamists or true Sharia law. There is a Muslim Brotherhood, but it’s different there than in some of the other countries. They wanted to be in charge of their own destiny and would have accepted Israel. But we’ve done nothing, so they have to fold in with somebody for the sake of “We’re going to get our country back and use whoever we can.”

I can’t eliminate the Gulf States, who were very late to this party as well. They didn’t care about the Syrians, either. Russia wants Syria; Iran wants Syria. North Korea wants Syria. We have all of the countries that don’t like us and they’re all posturing their power and force in Syria on both sides.

THE POST & EMAIL: Who do you think will end up taking over Syria? Are we supplying them with anything that you know of?

MS. SIMON: We’re allegedly told that we are supplying them with “non-lethal” supplies. After reading through a lot of open-source material, I have a deep sense that we are giving them weapons, but we’re doing it through the Gulf States, meaning Qatar; France, Jordan and Turkey. But the bigger fallout is this: tens of thousands of people have left Syria. Where have they gone? They’ve gone to Lebanon; they’ve gone to Jordan and Turkey. We found out recently that there are an estimated 30,000 people missing. Also, Turkey has called for our formal intervention in Syria, which is due to Qaddafi weapons being in fact shipped to Turkey that make their way to Syrian factions, mostly AQ types.

[Editor’s Note: Fox News and The Washington Post have reported within the last week that “the Obama administration has participated in the creation of an arms pipeline to Al Qaeda in Syria...a “Fast & Furious” program that is running Saudi and Qatari weapons to our terrorist enemies in the Middle East, and Joe Biden lied about it in the [vice-presidential] debate.”]

Jordan is likely to fall under this pressure. What does this look like in the next 2-3 years? Do we have to go through nation-building in Syria if Assad is removed? Do we have to do nation-building in Jordan should it fall? We are not gaining anything. The forecast of this is grimmer today for the United States than it was before.

THE POST & EMAIL: So you do not call the Arab Spring a success?

MS. SIMON: There is zero success in the Arab Spring: zero. Look at the guy who’s taken over Libya: Magarief. Gaddafi hated him and tried to have him killed. He came to the United States and was here for 30 years. “OK, we’ve made good friends with him; we’ve recognized him. Gaddafi’s gone, so you can go back into Libya now and handle things.” But he can’t handle them. There are numerous militia groups, and he’s bought them. With the whole thing happening in Benghazi, he’s saying, “We’ll work to get rid of them. We’ll throw all of these militias out.” But they haven’t been thrown out.

[Editor’s Note: A September 13, 2011 article in the UK Daily Mail reported that the interim Libyan government at the time had declared that “Sharia law” would become the basis to “guide the country” after Gaddafi was deposed.]

THE POST & EMAIL: The Libyan president said that Benghazi was a terrorist attack almost right away while Obama and his regime were blaming an internet video. He said it was “planned.”

MS. SIMON: The video was used for damage control and nothing more. That was a plot. There are thousands of anti-Muslim videos on the internet. It’s the cover-up afterward…and the death of four Americans. I think there’s a deeper, deeper cover-up here, and that’s really the thing that bothers me. I can’t get to it: was the cover-up actually that we were going to turn Libya over to The Muslim Brotherhood? Was it the cover-up of who’s working for whom? Was it the cover-up that nobody is wanting any kind of diplomatic objective on Libya? That’s where I am. Why would Hillary take responsibility for the failure of the State Department? It’s not her style to do that.

[Editor’s Note: After more than two weeks, the Obama regime admitted that the Benghazi attack was the work of terrorists, which the CIA station chief in Libya had reportedly asserted within 24 hours of the event. However, on October 21, the day before the last presidential debate, a new story quoting an unnamed “U.S. intelligence official” was reported by several mainstream media outlets which combined the video and militants but “no planning” as the cause of the attack. Several different explanations have been offered since September 11, the day of the attack on the U.S. consulate.

Following the October 10 hearing, the House Oversight Committee released cables sent by U.S. embassy staff in Tripoli, including those signed by the late Amb. Stevens, which indicated rising extremism and danger in Libya over the prior year with requests for increased security.] Additional documentation was released by the committee late last week.

An individual who escaped from Libya and was traveling to Syria following the September 11 attack in Benghazi has admitted to being a member of “violent extremist networks” and is being held in Turkey.]

THE POST & EMAIL: I recall that Lt. Col. Andrew Wood testified on October 10 to the House Oversight Committee that between 10,000 and 20,000 manpads had been released once Gaddafi fell and that he was compelled to speak even if it were at his own peril.

MS. SIMON: That’s because (Rep.) Dennis Kucinich asked the question, and then Col. Wood responded. Then Eric Nordstrom said that “the Taliban is inside the building.”

THE POST & EMAIL: What do you think Nordstrom meant by that?

MS. SIMON: Inside the State Department.

THE POST & EMAIL: Do you think that Nordstrom was saying that there are people inside the State Department working with The Muslim Brotherhood against the United States?

MS. SIMON: They are. They clearly are. We have three Muslim Brotherhood members working in the White House; there are Muslim Brotherhood inside the State Department; there are Muslim Brotherhood working in the Department of Defense. There is no denial of that; it is absolutely a fact. The problem is that it all comes down to Muslim sensibilities. The other thing that was revealed in that congressional testimony is that we were the last flag standing. That tells you that everybody else felt that “This isn’t worth our treasure and time; we’re getting out of Libya.” But the United States said, “No, we’re good; we’re going to stay here,” and we are, in fact, the last flag standing.

The sad part about that is that we didn’t have any true security. Blue Mountain, the contracting company that was supposed to supply security, did what they were told to do in the letter of the contract. But it tells us that the people who were assigned by Blue Mountain in Benghazi were nothing more than Wal-Mart greeters. They had no weapons. They provided only building maintenance, if you will, and transportation; they were drivers. They were paid less than $5.00/hour.

THE POST & EMAIL: Why do you think the State Department agreed to such an arrangement?

MS. SIMON: Because we don’t want to offend any of the Muslims. We don’t want to put a flag out there; we don’t want to have armed security people saying to the Libyans or anyone else in the Middle East that “We are offended” and “We feel we are a threat by any outside force.” So we don’t have the Marines here; we’re not walking around with M-16s and other weapons.

THE POST & EMAIL: Even though they may have been needed?

MS. SIMON: There’s no question they were needed. The entire year’s-worth of events in Libya tells us that they were needed. Not only did we need Marines’ we probably needed a lot more humans on the ground.

THE POST & EMAIL: Do you think Amb. Stevens was aware that security was kept “artificially low” purposely? Might he have thought that there was something strange about his being denied additional security?

MS. SIMON: Amb. Stevens had a long career working in the Middle East. He had made some good contacts and good friends. I think he was particularly chosen to be the ambassador there because of those contacts. They were good contacts in his world and the Obama world, but they weren’t good contacts for the safety and the trust of the United States having a footprint in the Middle East, certainly in Libya.

I listened to an interview that he had given to some people in the press about a year ago, and he was very up-front, very articulate, very well-versed, very insightful, and very current. But personally, I think he was on a fool’s mission thinking that they could deal diplomatically with coffee and crumpets at the table and make nice with these people. Clearly, that is what the Obama administration thinks they can do, and it hasn’t worked. We’ve extended the olive branch by the tonnage, and it hasn’t gotten us anywhere because this administration is not being honest about what an Islamic Caliphate wants. They all hate us, and we cannot get by that. So the rules of engagement, whether it be at the ambassador level or the lower levels, have all been altered up. Let’s all play “nice-nice.” He tried that with Ahmadinejad several times, and Ahmadinejad is laughing at us.

THE POST & EMAIL: In the vice-residential debate, Joe Biden said that Iran is not close to being able to deliver a nuclear weapon…but why does he want to wait?

MS. SIMON: It’s not only “Why wait?” It goes much deeper than that. Joe Biden clearly has not paid any attention to any of the IAEA reports. They have enough fissure material; they already have enough weaponized systems. The thing now is having more quantity for more weaponized systems. Israel would not take all the proactive measures they have taken to stop and slow down Iran if it weren’t an imminent threat, “imminent” meaning days, months or weeks. Israel wasn’t going to tolerate that same kind of agenda in Syria and Israel bombed their nuclear facility. They’re just not going to do that.

There are other countries over there that we’re not paying enough attention to, but Israel is. One is Kuwait, and one is Azerbaijan. The UAE. If we do the right thing with theses countries and show force, they will bend and come over to our side. But right now, that’s not the case. What Israel is doing certainly is for Israel, but not only for Israel.

THE POST & EMAIL: Do you think there is anything else underlying the Obama regime’s approach to the Middle East?

MS. SIMON: If you look at The Muslim Brotherhood history here in the United States, they actually came in to the U.S. in the 1960s and established an office and a presence in Chicago. If you look at who in Chicago – and you can look at some of the players in the Chicago Commerce Clause – if you look at some of the people and some of the deals that have been cut by Mayor Daley and all of the other people – let’s face it: Gaddafi had business deals with Louis Farrakhan. So this tells you that they have some deep loyalty or they are marching to certain orders demanded of them by The Muslim Brotherhood. I think now at this point, for their own safety, they have to appease every demand of The Muslim Brotherhood, whether they like it or not. The Arab footprint in Chicago and Illinois is massive; it’s actually much worse than it is in Michigan. I think there is a very long history of that.

THE POST & EMAIL: How about Obama’s apparent sympathy with the Muslim world?

MS. SIMON: Not only is he sympathetic; he is pro-agenda. There are too many indicators. When you take out any reference to Islam or the Muslim faith from training materials that the FBI uses; the fact that we have changed the Rules of Engagement in Afghanistan; the fact that Lt. Col. Matthew Dooley was removed from the Joint Forces Staff College for teaching an Islamic course that he didn’t design…that was not his syllabus; that syllabus was there before he got there. So what has happened is that this entire administration, including Dempsey, including Panetta, including and Hillary and the National Security Council – they have all become overly sensitive, to the point most recently that we bought a $70,000 ad that both Hillary and Obama were in and played it in Pakistan saying that we embrace all faiths and that’s what America was founded on…

THE POST & EMAIL: Who paid for that?

MS. SIMON: The taxpayers. Another thing that is a topic for another day is that this administration continues to support the Palestinians, which is another problem. I would also submit the name “Samantha Power.” Samantha Power is completely anti-Israel and works as a senior staff person for the National Security Council. She was part of the Obama transition team and the Obama 2008 campaign and is still there. She’s married to Cass Sunstein.

THE POST & EMAIL: Do you think that Ambassador Stevens and the other three were specifically targeted for murder?

MS. SIMON: I don’t think that they were targeted, but I think their objective, their mission was what was targeted as well as to get the United States out of Libya. If you look at how many attacks we have had in Libya just in the last year, it was sending a clear message: “All you Westerners, including Britain, get out, including the Red Cross.” I did mention in my piece that Sean Smith – and Hillary was the one who actually pointed this out to me when she gave that talk in front of the four flag-draped caskets – was a gamer. In the gaming world, after 9/11 and when we decided that we weren’t going to get caught any more in this, he found out at the end of the Clinton administration that there was a massive wall between the FBI and the CIA. So he had to work not only to take down that wall, but we also had very antiquated systems. That’s the reason that we ended up with the Patriot Act; that’s the reason that we ended up with a lot of the technology that they had to employ to start scratching this nonsense. Once the NSA was going to the telecommunications companies and working with them to track all cell phone traffic, email traffic, and text traffic back to the U.S. so we could analyze it, don’t think that our enemies didn’t know that. So what did they do? They all altered their communications methods. They all went back to couriers, carrier pigeons, and thumb drives. They also would pass out a password and craft an email, but they would never click on the email to send it; it would always sit there in a draft. So it never flew across the email corridor. Then, these people could and sign in and go look at that draft.

The other piece is this: they started using video games because they can say and operate and type and play true jihad going completely unfettered and unchecked in the gaming world. You can hide documents in those. So when Hillary said that Sean Smith was a gamer, I knew immediately what he was doing. Now we have a problem. In the last two or three years we’ve had a massive problem that we want to address: cyber security, because we’re in a cyber war. We have people working in those gaming rooms to find out whatever we can. We’re in an information vortex; we don’t have enough analysts. We don’t have enough people connecting all of the dots to come up with a true conclusion and hand it off to the CIA top guy so they can put it in an PED.

THE POST & EMAIL: But Sean Smith was one of them?

MS. SIMON: Absolutely. Going back to your question, I truly believe that the jihadists – the Ansar al-Sharia, the February 17 Martyrs Brigade, the Rahman Brigade – knew that they were being tracked. So was Amb. Stevens the target? I don’t think that he was specifically the target; it could have been anyone. The target was “We don’t want you watching us anymore. We don’t want you to know where these weapons are going. We don’t want you to know who of us has these weapons.

THE POST & EMAIL: “We want you to leave.”

MS. SIMON: Exactly right. We were the last people there, and we broadcasted our presence, but we didn’t put any security there. We did not have enough human intelligence on the ground. We may have had it in Tripoli, but we didn’t have it in Benghazi.

THE POST & EMAIL: We may not have it in other parts of the world where Americans are.

Editor’s Note: Ms. Simon told us that she often works ten hours a day for Stand Up America. “In doing so, I come across a lot of things where I start seeing a pattern and where dots need to be connected. The real watch-point for me to write the two pieces on Benghazi was when Hillary spoke about Sean Smith being a gamer. That’s what set me off. I said, ‘There’s way, way too much to this not to dig in to it,’” she said. “It’s a bigger thing than just blaming it on a video and having this administration lie to us. They can lie to us, but what are the lies truly covering up? I’m just trying to get some clues about what they’re covering up, but I don’t think I’ve hit it all.”

Why They Love Usama, Hate Obama, and How Obama Uses the Same Tactic at Home!-Posted on The Lid-By Barry Rubin-On October 7, 2012:

"Why are tens of thousands of Middle Eastern Muslims chanting about how much they love Usama bin Ladin and how much they hate Barack (Hussein) Obama?

Simple. Because bin Ladin was a Muslim and an Arab (for the Arab demonstrators) and thus he was one of their people, someone from their side, whatever tactical disagreements they might have had with him. And Obama isn’t. No amount of groveling, apology, or money will change that fact. Isn’t that clear?

I should quickly add that many Muslims don’t support the Islamists. In elections in Libya and Tunisia, a majority voted for non-Islamist parties. Even in Egypt when the showdown came in the presidential election the Muslim Brotherhood candidate won by only a narrow margin. Most Lebanese don’t support the Islamists (the main force of which is Hizballah, a Shia group). There are, of course, plenty of Islamists and they have lots of sympathizers. They can cite chapter and verse from Islamic holy texts.

Yet that doesn’t make all Muslims supporters of revolutionary Islamism or advocates of Shia totalitarian states, no matter how many times people who are ignorant about Islam and the Middle East run their little rants. Those rants are just as false as the “Islam is a religion of peace” nonsense.

But that’s not my point here. The key element for this article is this:

When solidarity along group lines takes priority and the line is that all of “us” must unite against the “other” no matter what truth, logic, or justice dictates then that means serious trouble.

Well, guess what? That is the line of the Obama Administration and its Newest Left supporters. All African-Americans should support the regime because Obama is black and anyone opposing him is a racist. All “Hispanics” should support the president because he really wants open borders and the turning of all illegal immigrants into citizens, while everyone else is a racist.

All women should support the ruling group and leftist ideology because it wants to give them free birth control and anyone on the other side hates women. And everyone who receives a government check has to support the regime or someone might take away their check. Actually what’s most likely to take away their check is the bankruptcy of the programs due to over-spending.

In other words, the dominant forces in the mass media and academia and the current government and their supporters are tearing America apart by inciting interest groups to hate each other, make war on each other, and give loyalty primarily to their group no questions asked.

And this is precisely the kind of thing that makes Middle Eastern Muslims who even if they were Islamists—like the Muslim Brotherhood and the Salafist groups—hated bin Ladin when he was alive opportunistically turn him into a martyr. The creation of a hysterical mob mentality for political gain is not restricted to the Middle East.”

“It was a little much when President Barack Obama said that he was “offended” by the suggestion that his administration would try to deceive the public about what happened in Benghazi. What has this man not deceived the public about?

Remember his pledge to cut the deficit in half in his first term in office? This was followed by the first trillion dollar deficit ever, under any President of the United States — followed by trillion dollar deficits in every year of the Obama administration.

Remember his pledge to have a “transparent” government that would post its legislative proposals on the Internet several days before Congress was to vote on them, so that everybody would know what was happening? This was followed by an ObamaCare bill so huge and passed so fast that even members of Congress did not have time to read it.

Remember his claims that previous administrations had arrogantly interfered in the internal affairs of other nations — and then his demands that Israel stop building settlements and give away land outside its 1967 borders, as a precondition to peace talks with the Palestinians, on whom there were no preconditions?

As for what happened in Libya, the Obama administration says that there is an “investigation” under way. An “on-going investigation” sounds so much better than “stonewalling” to get past election day. But you can bet the rent money that this “investigation” will not be completed before election day. And whatever the investigation says after the election will be irrelevant.

The events unfolding in Benghazi on the tragic night of September 11th were being relayed to the State Department as the attacks were going on, “in real time,” as they say. So the idea that the Obama administration now has to carry out a time-consuming “investigation” to find out what those events were, when the information was immediately available at the time, is a little much.

The full story of what happened in Libya, down to the last detail, may never be known.

But, as someone once said, you don’t need to eat a whole egg to know that it is rotten. And you don’t need to know every detail of the events before, during and after the attacks to know that the story put out by the Obama administration was a fraud.

The administration’s initial story that what happened in Benghazi began as a protest against an anti-Islamic video in America was a very convenient theory. The most obvious alternative explanation would have been devastating to Barack Obama’s much heralded attempts to mollify and pacify Islamic nations in the Middle East.

To have helped overthrow pro-Western governments in Egypt and Libya, only to bring anti-Western Islamic extremists to power would have been revealed as a foreign policy disaster of the first magnitude. To have been celebrating President Obama’s supposedly heroic role in the killing of Osama bin Laden, with the implication that Al Qaeda was crippled, would have been revealed as a farce.

Osama bin Laden was by no means the first man to plan a surprise attack on America and later be killed. Japan’s Admiral Yamamoto planned the attack on Pearl Harbor that brought the United States into World War II, and he was later tracked down and shot down in a plane that was carrying him.

Nobody tried to depict President Franklin D. Roosevelt as some kind of hero for having simply authorized the killing of Yamamoto. In that case, the only hero who was publicized was the man who shot down the plane that Yamamoto was in.

Yet the killing of Osama bin Laden has been depicted as some kind of act of courage by President Obama. After bin Laden was located, why would any President not give the go-ahead to get him?

That took no courage at all. It would have been far more dangerous politically for Obama not to have given the go-ahead. Moreover, Obama hedged his bets by authorizing the admiral in charge of the operation to proceed only under various conditions.

This meant that success would be credited to Obama and failure could be blamed on the admiral — who would join George W. Bush, Hillary Clinton and other scapegoats for Obama’s failures.”

“Obama’s greatest foreign policy error was the same one that had been made by Bush and by numerous past administrations. The error was that the problem was not Islam, but Islamic violence. It was Obama however who took that error to its logical conclusion by pursuing a foreign policy meant to part Islamists from their violent tendencies by allowing them to win without the need for terrorism.

Violence, the thinking in diplomatic circles went, was inherently alarming and destabilizing. When Islamists don’t take over, they move to the West, preach radical theology, gather up followers and begin blowing things up. But let them take over their own home countries and they’ll no longer have any reason to draw up maps of London and New York, not when they’re beheading adulterers and burning churches back home.

The Arab Spring was to the Middle East what the betrayal of Czechoslovakia to the Nazis and the betrayal of the rest of Eastern Europe to the Communists was to 20th century European history. It was the moment when all the diplomatic folly that had come before it came together in one great historical instant of national and international betrayal.

The diplomatic wunderkinds had never taken Islamist theology seriously, just as their predecessors had not considered the possibility that the Bolsheviks might be serious about their world revolution. And they had also failed to recognize that Islamic terrorism was not only a means to power, but also an end in and of itself, a way of harnessing the endless violence and instability in desert societies and turning them into power and profit.

What every Middle Eastern leader has always understood is that the violence, call it raids, terrorism, guerrilla warfare, gang activity, sectarian militias, military coups, desert banditry, was never going away. It was the tiger and the clever leader rides the tiger, rather than ending up inside it, harnessing and directing the violence, to remain in power.

Islam is a religion built around that violence, sanctifying it as a religious principle, and thus taking it out of the realm of Fitna and into the realm of Jihad. The difference between the two is a matter of theology and that theology is a matter of perspective. What is banditry and what is a holy war is a matter of where you’re standing and which way the bullets are flying.

The Islamists might be able to direct the violence, but they could no more shut it down than any of their secular predecessors could. They could kill their enemies, but only by unleashing the tiger on them and when the killing was done, they would still be left with a hungry tiger looking around for his next meal. So the Islamists, like the Saudis, were bound to fuse religion with realpolitik by making sure that the tigers were pointed our way.

Even if their violence were only a means to an end, the end would not come when every Middle Eastern country was run by Islamist governments. For one thing there would never be a means of agreeing on what a truly Islamist government was. The reactionary impetus of Wahhabism leads to an endless series of reforms meant to recreate a lost 7th century theological paradise by purging those damnable 8th century theological innovators.

To many Salafists, the Muslim Brotherhood is just Mubarak with a beard. To other Salafists, those Salafists are just the Muslim Brotherhood with an untrimmed beard. After overthrowing Mubarak to end the perception that the United States supports un-Islamic dictators, maintaining ties with the Muslim Brotherhood would invite attacks from those Salafists in the hopes of ending US support for the Brotherhood, resetting that foreign policy accomplishment to zero. And the Brotherhood would wink and nod at those attacks to maintain its Islamist street cred and keep the violence going in the other direction.

As the attacks of September 11, 2012 showed us, the effect of putting the Islamists in charge of the Arab Spring countries was not to relieve tensions or improve America’s image, but to make it easier for Jihadists to launch attacks on America. And the argument advanced by Obama and so many others, that it was our support for dictators that inspired terrorists, had come to nothing. As Carter had done in Iran, Obama had stood behind the Islamists and against the “dictators”, only to have the newly Islamist dictators kick him in the face, first through mobs carrying out attacks against American diplomatic facilities under the guise of plausible deniability, and then through bolder confrontations.

But finally, the seizure of one Muslim country or two of them or a dozen of them is not the end of the Islamists. Islamists don’t recognize borders or national identities, no more than the Communists did. Their objective is not a flag of their own, but the territorial expansion of their ideology.

The presence of Muslims in the West makes the takeover of Western countries necessary for the same reason that the takeover of Muslim countries by Islamists was necessary. Muslim immigration to the West creates a mandate to impose Islamic law on the West. Western leaders react to that by offering to accept some elements of Sharia into their legal system. This moves the process into the second stage, the one that the Arab Spring countries were under, practicing an imperfect version of Islamic law that the Islamists were then compelled to “perfect.”

Everything that the West has done to appease Muslims has worked as well as a man jumping into a tiger cage and pouring meat sauce all over his body. Each act of appeasement only makes Muslim violence necessary and inevitable. Every increase in the Islamic footprint in the West attracts Islamists intent on expanding and purifying that footprint, as they have done in their own countries. The more the West takes in Islamic populations and laws, the more Islamists are compelled to bring Diaspora Muslim populations and laws into full compliance with their theology.

Obama’s foreign policy aimed at allowing the Islamists to win. He ignored the Iranian protesters against an Islamist state, while rushing to support the Islamist protesters in Egypt and Tunisia. The Islamists won and September 11, 2012 was a consequence of those victories. And it won’t be the last consequence.

As Chamberlain learned of Hitler and as the Democrats learned of the Commies, there is no finite amount of concessions, no set range of territories that can be traded in exchange for peace. The Nazis and Communists wanted the world because their goals were not confined to mere territories, but to the enslavement of billions to create an ideal world for the benefit of their chosen elites. Islam is interested in the same thing.

Islamists don’t want Egypt, Syria or Palestine. And they certainly won’t settle for them. No more than Hitler settled for Czechoslovakia or Stalin settled for Poland. They will accept their conquests in bites, but they will never stop biting, chewing and swallowing until they run up against a force that will not allow them to advance and expand further.

Obama tried to divide violent Islamism from political Islamism, giving the Islamists what they wanted without violence, to eliminate the need for a War on Terror. But all he accomplished was to give Islamist violence a bigger base and more resources to work with. Islam is inherently violent. A non-violent Islamic victory doesn’t end the violence; it only expands its capacity for violence.”

Note: My following blog posts contain numerous articles and/or blog posts and videos that reveal: 1) the live presentation by Joel Gilbert, his DVD Film titled "Dreams From My Real Father," along with the newly released film titled "The Unvetted”; 2) the Islamic infiltration inside our government armed with our secrets, to include the President's secret link to Hamas; the Islamic infiltration inside our military; the Communist infiltration inside our government, to Include President Obama's secret link to Communists; the George Soros connection, to include the shared agendas of George Soros and the President; and 3) the President's secret CIA connections, along with the disastrous results of these infiltrations, links and connections-You Decide:

Note: If you have a problem viewing any of the listed blog posts, please copy website and paste it on your browser. Sure seems like any subject matter that may be considered controversial by this administration is being censored-What happened to free speech?-You Decide.

Section One: Congress shall make and the President shall sign a Balanced Federal Budget every year and before the beginning of the ensuing fiscal year. In the event Congress and the President fail to make said…